My position on this front was clear, as stated in the above article: I could not support moving forward with an increase in the FasTracks tax in the absence of “a specific plan and a specific time frame.”  Since December and the RTD staff finding that the combination of Burlington-Northern rates and other capital costs will exceed $1 billion for the Northwest Rail line (between $1.1 billion and $1.7 billion, depending on the year of expenditure), RTD engaged in a responsible discussion regarding the most appropriate transit infrastructure investment for the northwest region.  Unfortunately, with far too many holes in the details of the optional investment strategies RTD staff offered anbd insuffient evaluation time, the northwest corridor stakeholders were far from a consensus position on which direction to take in the march toward a 2012 FasTracks tax vote.  This is not a criticism of either RTD staff or the northwest corridor stakeholders.  We simply face a challenge that will take more than a few months to resolve.

So how do we move FasTracks forward?  First and foremost, we need to make the best use of the FasTracks tax dollars that RTD already has at its disposal and use them to leverage other available resources.  This includes, as John Fryer explained in his recent Time-Call story, RTD officials remain committed to completing FasTracks’ Northwest Corridor, “[A]ggressively pursuing federal grants and possible public-private partnerships to help fund improvements throughout the district-wide FasTracks system.”  You can be sure that I will work to direct a fair share of these resources toward projects that serve Boulder County.  Most critically, we want to make sure there is funding available to support the build-out and operation of true bus-rapid-transit service along US36 as we move toward completing the HOV lanes between Westminster and Boulder.

Just as important, I have called on RTD staff to reinvigorate the conversation it began in the northwest region regarding our options for future transit infrastructure investments.  We know a lot more since we first passed the FasTracks ballot initiative back in 2004.  I believe it is incumbent on all of us, whether we are firm advocates for the current Northwest Rail line alignment and technology or proponents of a very different approach, to conduct a broad review of all our investment options so we are sure we are making the right choice for meeting our future transit needs.   Once we arrive at that consensus investment plan [or, as I said to John Aguilar in his story for the Daily Camera, Northwest Rail advocates look for 'fresh start' on RTD commuter train, once we are absolutely "clear what it is that we're committing to this corridor and what the timing of those investments would be"], we will be in a much better place to advocate for the necessary resources to build it.

So, while the RTD Board is passing on 2012 . . . we continue to move forward toward fulfilling the promise of the FasTracks program.

The new road lanes will carry buses as well as high-occupant vehicles and those who are willing to pay a fluctuating toll rate.  It is important to note, though, that the primary purpose of the new lanes is to allow buses to flow, unimpeded by traffic, in their travels along the corridor.  This should greatly reduce travel time for bus service between Boulder and Denver.

Ultimately, the new road lanes will extend all the way into Boulder.  We are working to make this happen, sooner rather than later, through various creative public and private financing mechanisms.  So, stay tuned for what I hope will be more good news to report in the near future . . .

Of course, all the exciting future travel benefits this US 36 project offers will not come without some pain in the coming months.  Construction of the new road lanes likely will have major traffic impacts along US 36.  This will be a challenge for everyone.

CDOT, RTD and the transportation advocacy organization, US 36 Commuting Solutions are working to limit the suffering.  They are devising a variety of travel coping strategies, including traffic information services and avoidance measures.  I recommend that you keep in touch with US 36 Commuting Solutions at http://36commutingsolutions.org/ to stay abreast of the project progress and available travel assistance.

To be clear, though, the US 36 project represents a critical investment for our region which will significantly improve transit service between Boulder and Denver.  I look forward to celebrating once we get through the painful construction period.

I voted with the majority in favor of moving the “hybrid” proposal forward for a variety of reasons that I will outline below.  However, it is worth noting that two newspapers chose to highlight the scepticism I expressed concerning the success of a potential 2102 ballot initiative which would raise additional funds to complete the FasTracks program.  You can read the full newspaper stories here: Daily Camera and Denver Post.  Specifically, the Daily Camera included this quote from my statement prior to the Board vote:  “‘This is a very rough year [to] go back to the voters for more funding,’ said board member John Tayer. ‘I’m not going into this with wild ideas that people want to get taxed.’”

Not to split hairs, but the Denver Post story replaced “want” with “willing”.  I am not sure which I said, but I know my intent was to argue that I doubt the public wants to pay more taxes to complete the FasTracks program.  However, they might be willing to provide additional funding if RTD can make a strong case for that investment.  Therein lies the challenge . . .

As I explained in the rest of my statement during last Tuesday’s meeting, my support for the staff recommendation was a vote in favor of continuing the FasTracks planning process, including the state mandated annual review by the Denver Regional Council of Governments.  My vote was not, though, a commitment to approve a 2012 ballot initiative.

I was willing to support moving forward with the “hybrid” proposal because it meets two important goals:  The plan both provides immediate short term transit relief for our corridor through implementation of a strong bus-rapid-transit system (BRT) while making a long term commitment to complete Northwest Rail line.   In this way, the “hybrid” proposal attempts to thread a very small needle between those who support only the rail line and those who are partisan, at least in the short term, to the BRT system.

Since the ”hybrid” plan is a relatively new concept, there still are many details RTD staff needs to clarify.  As I said last Tuesday, once shocked – twice burned.  The Northwest corridor has been on the short end of FasTracks investment and regional transit investments, generally.  This discrepancy must end.  I will not support additional FasTracks funding through a 2012 ballot initiative without much more thorough clarification of the infrastructure and operations elements in the “hybrid” plan for the Northwest corridor and firm implementation commitments.

For now, though, I feel the FasTracks planning process is moving in a positive direction.  I do think a 2012 FasTracks ballot initiative will face a difficult uphill slog toward success.  However, my ultimate goal is to complete the FasTracks program faster . . . and we can’t get there without additional public funds.  The “hybrid” option seems to offer the best opportunity to bring all the competing interests together around a common vision for regional transit investments.  Let’s continue the due diligence process and our efforts to protect the promise of FasTracks.

p.s.  Since I last wrote, a couple of local media outlets have weighed-in with their perspectives on the FasTracks plan for the Northwest corridor, some prior to introduction of the “hybrid” proposal.  The Daily Camera editors offered this opinion, Hop on the bus, Gus, while their Editorial Advisory Board had this to say: Editorial Advisory Board.  The Boulder Weekly also offered a strong condemnation of RTD’s work on the FasTracks program and proposed implementation plans: RTD runs the old bait and switch.  Finally, the Times Call issued this very critical statement regarding the FasTracks program and the reception a potential future ballot initiative would receive in Longmont: Longmont voters have ‘no stomach’ for RTD tax.

Initial response to the hybrid option has been mixed, though it did seem to breath new life into the potential for a 2012 FasTracks ballot initiative.  A recent Denver Post editorial was typical of the public reaction: A full FasTracks can still happen.  As the editorial notes, though, RTD needs to “keep working” . . . and we are.

Most critically, RTD staff is working to tackel a number of questions regarding specific elements of the hybrid proposal.  Of most obvious interest are questions concerning the time-frame for completing the Northwest Rail line and the operating characteristics of the BRT system.  But we will need to fill-in many other elements of the final hybrid package before it is ready for prime time (i.e. worthy of taking to the voters).

Meanwhile, the RTD Board is scheduled this Tuesday to approve forwarding a single preferred FasTracks plan, among the options staff has offered or some other variation the Board might propose, to the Denver Regional Council of Governments for their annual state-mandated review.  This vote will represent an important declaration from the RTD Board regarding its strategy for completing the full FasTracks program.  While I have already received encouragement from community representatives in the Northwest corridor to move the hybrid option forward, such as this letter from the US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition: MCC 36CS March 16 2012 Letter and March 12 Comments and Questions, your input prior to Tuesday’s important vote is appreciated.

I also want to urge you to attend a meeting that RTD is hosting at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 22 at the Omni Interlocken Hotel in Broomfield.  This meeting will feature input from both commuter rail and BRT experts regarding the transit systems we are considering for our corridor.  For those who can’t be there in person for the February 22 meeting, RTD is accepting direct input on the proposed transit investment options through March 1 at www.rtd-fastracks.com.

Finally, as a demonstration of how wrenching the current dialogue has become for local policy leaders concerning the optional transit investments for the Northwest Corridor, I suggest you have a look at the following two news reports:

• Boulder, rest of U.S. 36 corridor struggle with FasTracks future; and,
• RTD, Longmont council discuss survival of city’s FasTracks line.

Indeed, there is no easy solution that will satisfy all interests in this situation.  As we continue to collect all the information we need to make the best transit investment decision, though, I look forward to hearing your perspective.

At the moment, all eyes are on the US36 corridor, where public officials, planners and citizens are coming to grips with the new price tag for the Northwest Rail Line.  It seems, as a recent Daily Camera story indicates, that our corridor’s decision regarding the preferred transit investment strategy is the “Key to FasTracks.”  There is some truth to this, but with many twists.

If Boulder County communities and other cities along the US36 corridor can’t come to agreement on a preferred option, then it will be difficult to pass a future tax initiative to complete the FasTracks program.  That’s because Boulder County typically gives strong support to transit ballot initiatives, which is critical to overcoming less enthusiasm in other corners of the Denver region.  Without a transit investment plan that all the communities in this area can enthusiastically back, it is likely that the votes of our citizens will be similarly split at the ballot box.  That could be the death knell for a future tax initiative.

But is a consensus position possible?  Many communities are set on the rail alternative.  They planned development around the future Northwest Rail Line stations.  Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally’s comments in a recent newspaper story, “Broomfield leaders: Is rail line still realistic?“, are indicative of this sentiment:  “What our council has said is, ‘We don’t have another choice than to fight for what we have been working on for seven years.’  (Bus rapid transit) is not what the city has been planning for, and it’s not what the citizens have been planning for.”  And, quite frankly, many only supported FasTracks originally because they thought it would bring rail service to Boulder County.   “When is the rail line coming?” still is the most common question I get as an RTD Board representative, despite the financial uncertainty.

Others look at the numbers and have concluded that investment in a high-end bus rapid transit (BRT) system is the only logical alternative for the US36 corridor.  This includes longtime Northwest Rail Line skeptics, such as Bob Greenlee (see “All aboard?“), as well as those who feel the new cost projections force us to reconsider the rail option.  Boulder County Commissioner Will Toor alludes to that sort of thinking in a recent Denver Business Journal article, “With costs soaring for FasTracks’ NW rail line, RTD eyes no-build option“:  “I continue to be very concerned about the ability for us to publicly defend the Northwest rail’s numbers.  I’m looking at the options, but more discussion is needed.”

The pressure to arrive at a corridor consensus is exacerbated by the proposal to place a FasTracks funding initiative on the ballot in 2012.  Many have concluded that this is the best year to approach the voters, for a variety of reasons, and political and business leaders are giving it serious consideration.  Undoubtedly, the RTD Board and other stakeholders will base a final decision to proceed on factors such as the state of the regional economy, poll results concerning the appetite of voters for additional taxes, and resolution of the above mentioned transit investment quandary for the US36 corridor.

Further muddying the waters is talk by the Colorado Department of Transportation of trying to couple additional FasTracks funding with tax support for roadway improvements.  This concept has received preliminary support from various interests and commentators (see “Governor needs a two-track mind“).  Others, however, reason it is best to plug ahead solely with the FasTracks funding request in light of many unanswered questions regarding a regional roadway initiative (e.g. what roads would receive funding, implications for the distribution of other state roadway dollars, etc.).

Frustrated and confused by all of this?  You are not alone and many are so flummoxed that they are ready to throw in the towel on any chance of resolving these issues in time to run a successful 2012 FasTracks ballot initiative.  Personally, I am more concerned about making the right transit investment decision for our corridor and will focus my work, in the near-term, on obtaining all the information we need to conduct that analysis.  We still have some time to decide on a preferred investment strategy, be it rail, enhanced BRT, or some other combination of the two, and how and when to go to the voters for additional funding.  But, you can see the dilemma . . . so please let me know what you recommend as the best approach to regional transit investments for Boulder County.  Let’s get this right!

We learned that the full cost of getting the Northwest Rail line up and running will be $1.4 billion.  This is up from the most recent cost estimate of roughly $900 million.  This cost increase reflects the requirement that RTD pay Burlington-Northern (BN) an up-front fee of over $500 million for securing permanent operations time on their tracks, as opposed to the initial assumption of annual instalment payments as part of general operations expenses.  The higher price also reflects unanticipated scope elements that BN is demanding, such as full double tracking between Boulder and Longmont.

Another kicker is the potential that the final cost of the Northwest Rail line will run as much as $300 million higher due to RTD cash flow challenges.  Under the current planning scenario, with the Northwest Rail line being the last completed FasTracks system,  RTD does not expect to have sufficient resources to complete this commuter rail system for another three to five years.  The result is an anticipated cost escalation of $150 to $300 million due to price inflation.

To be fair, the new cost estimate for  the Northwest Rail line already accounts for inflationary expenses as a consequence of placing this system at the back of the prioritization line.  The rational for this approach is that an alternative prioritization scenario would would force RTD to delay all of the other remaining FasTracks projects until the Northwest Rail line is complete.  Still, when assessing the current cost estimate for the Northwest Rail line, it is important to remember that it would be around $400 million less if construction began soon after 2012, a much more reasonable rate when compared to the cost estimates for other rail corridors.

Regardless, the sticker shock for the Northwest Rail line has forced RTD and corridor stakeholders to consider other implementation options.  Taking the first stab, the options that RTD staff placed on the table are as follows:

As noted, RTD staff recommended the hotel concept that the Union Station Alliance submitted over the competing re-use proposal from the Union Station Neighborhood Corporation.  My previous blog contains links that describe the two re-use proposals: Union Station Re-Use: How to Move Forward?  Both proposals were strong and offer substantively the same features on the first floor of Union Station; a large waiting area surrounded by amenities such as local retail stores and restaurants.

During the initial RTD Board committee vote, I stood with the minority in opposition to the staff recommendation in favor of beginning negotiations with Union Station Alliance (Team USA, as has become their popular name).  I was very clear then that my preliminary committee vote did not suggest a preference for either of the competing re-use proposals.  Instead, given the high degree of public interest from across the Denver region in the future of our iconic Union Station building, I believed it was appropriate to provide the opportunity for further public scrutiny of the two re-use options before arriving at a final decision.  This was particularly important, I felt, in light of adjustments and clarifications the two competing teams made in the their proposals during the course of initial Board deliberations.

Faced with majority Board support for moving forward on negotiations with Team USA, I ultimately joined my Board colleagues in last Tuesday’s unanimous formal decision in favor of the staff recommendation.  I took this position on the basis of a number of factors.  First, as I explained during the final Board vote, I still would have prefered additional public input prior to the negotiations phase.  However, staff has promised that they will incorporate extensive additional public input as part of the negotiations process.  Along these lines, I made clear my specific desire for open house gatherings so the public has a chance to juxtapose the proposed re-use investments against the current configuration of Union Station.

I also noted in casting my vote last Tuesday evening that I have high expectations for the remainder of the Union Station re-use RFP process.  We are now in the negotiations phase . . . and I expect rigorous negotiations.  In particular, I urged RTD staff to press hard on three specific points:  1) The first floor of the station building must provide a welcoming and comfortable environment for all citizens, particularly RTD patrons; 2) An expert analysis must confirm the Team USA financial prospectus; and, 3) The building remodel must comply with historic preservation standards.  While I will account for many other considerations in my review of any final agreement with Team USA, I believe these three criteria are of paramount importance.

All that said, I do believe the Team USA proposal and its hotel concept is the most appealing re-use option for Union Station and the regional community it serves.  The 24-hour activity that a successful hotel will generate, along with the extensive remodelling investments Team USA promises to make to the building and the attractive financial return their proposal offers RTD, hold the greatest promise for the future of Union Station.  I look forward to seeing if, through the negotiations process, we can secure all the elements that are critical to fulfilling the exciting vision for Union Station in the Team USA proposal while meeting the expectations that RTD transit patrons and our other regional stakeholders have for this important building.

The two candidate teams first pitched their proposed DUS re-use plans during a special hearing on November 3.  The following is the link to a video recording of this hearing:  http://denver.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=68.   More information on the competing re-use proposals is available here:  http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/dus_1.

In summary, both proposals call for a welcoming station environment on the building’s first floor that features retail stores, restaurants and other amenities which will serve the traveling public and other DUS occupants.  The major difference between the two proposals is the character of uses on the upper floors:  The Union Station Neighborhood Corporation team calls for offices while the Union Station Alliance team is proposing a hotel.  Both proposals are attractive and present different levels of risk and opportunity. 

It is clear that citizens throughout the Denver region feel they have a stake in the disposition of this iconic building.  This interest is reflected in the extensive input the Board has received from various stakeholders regarding the two re-use proposals.  To different perspectives in the Denver Post provide a taste of the input we are receiving:

• Editorial: An update, not a major makeover;
• Barnes-Gelt: RTD on the right track.

While all the initial input has been helpful, I still believe further public scrutiny of the two re-use proposals is appropriate before the Board selects its preferred candidate team.  There have been adjustments in each of the proposals since the first submissions, including substantive design changes.  Also, while much of the financial details for each of the re-use proposals is confidential, I am hoping to encourage more transparency on that front so the public has a better understanding of the approach each of the candidate teams is taking in this critical area.  

In general, I think the DUS project will benefit from additional reflection prior to selecting between the competing proposals.  The direction we take on DUS will dictate the character of this transit hub and its surrounding neighborhood for years to come.  Further public input also provides the two competing candidate teams with a chance to clarify their re-use proposals in response to recent public feedback.  Yes, we are on a tight time table for refurbishing Union Station, but clearly an additional month or so will not have a detrimental impact on the FasTracks implementation schedule.

Despite my advocacy for additional public outreach, my RTD Board colleagues may proceed with the scheduled vote on Tuesday evening.  Therefore, I am interested to hear which re-use proposal you believe is best.  I would most appreciate hearing your thoughts some time before the RTD Board’s Tuesday evening discussion.  Ultimately, our goal is to shape DUS in a manner the serves needs of rail passengers, provides the community and RTD with appropriate financial return, and creates a welcome and attractive environment as the hub of Denver’s transit system.  Your thoughts on how we achieve these goals is appreciated.

• Daily Camera:  RTD holds firm on bus route cuts in Boulder County; and,
• Denver Post: RTD board approves transit cuts but keeps some service for blind riders.

The Daily Camera article, in particular, carries two quotes from my comments during our discussion regarding the service cuts.  Specifically, it notes that I said, “[O]ur hands are tied” and “We find ourselves with our backs against the wall.”  All that is true, but it is important to clarify the context for these comments to fully understand the predicament that the RTD Board wrestled with during last night’s debate.

From the very outset of our conversation regarding the 2012 budget, it was clear that RTD was facing a very challenging year.  Staff explained that we could only balance the 2012 budget with either significant fare increases, service reductions or a combination of both.  Since we raised fares almost every year I have been on the RTD Board prior to 2012 and further fare increases would seriously jeopardize access for the transit dependant, let alone drive away discretionary customers, the focus for balancing the 2012 budget fell on service cuts.

This is where I get on my soap box regarding RTD finances.  As I have explained in previous posts, RTD is mired in a funding model that primarily ties our fate to sales tax, a revenue source that is highly volatile and has very little connection to the demand for transit service.  Thus, when the economy is in the tank and sales tax receipts drop, RTD is forced to cut service (or raise fares) during a period when the public often is more heavily dependant on transit and has less capacity to absorb increased transportation costs.  

The goal of the Long Range Fiscal Sustainability Task Force that I chaired this year was to identify operating efficiencies and revenue enhancement that would provide RTD with a more diverse financial base.  The Task Force discovered many promising opportunities, as outlined in its report (which you can read here: Fiscal Sustainability Task Force Report).  As I said last night, I will be riding staff to make sure we follow-up on all of these options.  We need to break out of the paradigm that limits our budgeting options during poor economic times to either cutting service or raising fares!

Unfortunately, most of the opportunities that the Fiscal Sustainability Task Force identified will take a year or more to implement due to the need for legislative authorization and/or further policy analysis.  So, for 2012, we were stuck with limited choices for balancing RTD’s budget.  After holding down employee costs and other discretionary spending, the final budget gap was roughly $10 million, a wide chasm representing about a 9 percent cut in RTD transit service.  It was in this context that I spoke last night of having our hands tied and our backs against the wall.

I could wax eloquently regarding the undeserved hit that Boulder County is taking in the service cuts that RTD staff ultimately proposed to cover the $10 million budget gap.  As I said last night, the staff proposal has terrible consequences for routes that are both heavily patronized and highly popular.  This includes reduced service on route 203 and the BOLT as well as complete elimination of the Superior call-n-Ride and the CC route.  Each of these adjustments is painful and I share many of the sentiments that my constituents offered in opposition, either through their direct e-mails to me or in their public hearing comments.

Of course, my fellow Board members and their own constituents offer similar appeals on behalf of service cuts in their respective districts.  In truth, when you are staring down the barrel of $10 million in service cuts, everyone feels the pain and staff did not spare any corner of the RTD district in its recommendations concerning the most appropriate adjustments to meet the budget target.  I felt fortunate that we were able to reverse a few initial staff recommendations for cuts on such routes as the SKIP and elimination of the DD routes.  Those bright spots aside, it was impossible to attract support from my RTD Board colleagues for sparing further routes in Boulder County while they accepted painful service cuts in their own districts.

As other Board members noted, last night’s vote was one of the most painful they ever cast.  Knowing that we were upholding our fiduciary responsibility to balance the RTD budget did not make it any easier to accept.  The charge now, as I suggested above, is to immediately get to work on building a more stable financial footing for RTD so we can begin to restore the service cuts we were forced to make last night and to meet the growing demand for transit service across the Denver region.